The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparing the accuracy of six intraoral scanners on prepared teeth and effect of scanning sequence

  • Diker, Burcu (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Okan University) ;
  • Tak, Onjen (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Okan University)
  • Received : 2020.03.13
  • Accepted : 2020.07.28
  • Published : 2020.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of six recently introduced intraoral scanners (IOSs) for single crown preparations isolated from the complete arch, and to determine the effect of scanning sequence on accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A complete arch with right and left canine preparations for single crowns was used as a study model. The reference dataset was obtained by scanning the complete arch using a highly accurate industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80, GOM GmbH). Six different IOSs (Trios, iTero, Planmeca Emerald, Cerec Omnicam, Primescan, and Virtuo Vivo) were used to scan the model ten times each. The scans performed with each IOS were divided into two groups, based on whether the scanning sequence started from the right or left quadrant (n=5). The accuracy of digital impression was evaluated using three-dimensional analyzing software (Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems). The Kruskal Wallis and Mann- Whitney U statistical tests for trueness analysis and the One-way ANOVA test for precision analysis were performed (α=.05). RESULTS. The trueness and precision values were the lowest with the Primescan (25 and 10 ㎛), followed by Trios (40.5 and 11 ㎛), Omnicam (41.5 ㎛ and 18 ㎛), Virtuo Vivo (52 and 37 ㎛), iTero (70 and 12 ㎛) and Emerald (73.5 and 60 ㎛). Regarding trueness, iTero showed more deviation when scanning started from the right (P=.009). CONCLUSION. The accuracy of digital impressions varied depending on the IOS and scanning sequence used. Primescan had the highest accuracy, while Emerald showed the most deviation in accuracy for single crown preparations.

Keywords

References

  1. Memari Y, Mohajerfar M, Armin A, Kamalian F, Rezayani V, Beyabanaki E. Marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns made by different impression methods: A literature review. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e536-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12800
  2. Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, Guth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:283-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1513-5
  3. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:184-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017
  4. Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont 2018;27:35-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12527
  5. Hayama H, Fueki K, Wadachi J, Wakabayashi N. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:347-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2018.01.003
  6. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
  7. ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - Part 1: General principles and definitions. International Standards Organization (ISO); Geneva; Switzerland, 1994. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:en. Accessed May 26, 2019.
  8. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1461-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027
  9. Sim JY, Jang Y, Kim WC, Kim HY, Lee DH, Kim JH. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63:25-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2018.02.002
  10. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:9-17.
  11. Carbajal Mejia JB, Wakabayashi K, Nakamura T, Yatani H. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:392-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.021
  12. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of completeand partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:11-9.
  13. Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Renne W. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:85-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.008
  14. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20:1495-504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y
  15. Zimmermann M, Koller C, Rumetsch M, Ender A, Mehl A. Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo. J Orofac Orthop 2017;78:466-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0103-3
  16. Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardo A, Camps A I. Accuracy of 4 digital scanning systems on prepared teeth digitally isolated from a complete dental arch. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:811-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.020
  17. Rauch A, Reich S, Schierz O. Chair-side generated posterior monolithic lithium disilicate crowns: clinical survival after 6 years. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:2083-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1998-6
  18. Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:2027-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7
  19. Hack GD, Patzelt SBM. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in-vitro investigation. Am Dent Assoc 2015;10:1-5.
  20. Muhlemann S, Greter EA, Park JM, Hammerle CHF, Thoma DS. Precision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: A within-subject comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:931-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13349
  21. Kim RJ, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:895-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.035
  22. Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Effect of software version on the accuracy of an intraoral scanning device. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:375-6. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5781
  23. Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, Savio G, Vigolo P, Monaco C, Stellini E. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63:396-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.002
  24. Osnes CA, Wu JH, Venezia P, Ferrari M, Keeling AJ. Full arch precision of six intraoral scanners in vitro. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64:6-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.05.005
  25. Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim M, Kim M. A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod 2016;46:3-12. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.3
  26. GOM: ATOS Core - Features: https://www.atos-core.com/en/features.php#3dScanning. Accessed 23/9/19.
  27. Kim JE, Amelya A, Shin Y, Shim JS. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:755-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.016
  28. Treesh JC, Liacouras PC, Taft RM, Brooks DI, Raiciulescu S, Ellert DO, Grant GT, Ye L. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:382-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.005
  29. Mandelli F, Gherlone E, Gastaldi G, Ferrari M. Evaluation of the accuracy of extraoral laboratory scanners with a singletooth abutment model: A 3D analysis. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:363-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2016.09.002
  30. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, Farges JC, Fages M, Ducret M. Intraoral scanner technologies: A review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng 2017;2017:8427595.
  31. Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:354-62. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354
  32. Kim RJ, Benic GI, Park JM. Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position. PLoS One 2019;14:e0222070. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222070

Cited by

  1. Effect of posterior span length on the trueness and precision of 3 intraoral digital scanners: A comparative 3-dimensional in vitro study vol.51, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20210076
  2. Is There a Significant Difference in Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners for Short-Span Fixed Dental Prosthesis? A Comparative In Vitro Study vol.11, pp.18, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188280
  3. CADCAM in dentistry. Materials and methods: an overview for the dental team vol.48, pp.8, 2021, https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2021.48.8.671
  4. Comparison of the virtual techniques in registering single implant position with a universal-coordinate system: An in vitro study vol.117, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103925